FOR 2026 MSCA fellowshipS applicants
Stop Re-reading Your Own Proposal, Asking Colleagues For Reviews, and Looking For Reassurance.
Get A Former Evaluator To Dismantle And Reassemble Your Proposal Before The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Fellowships Panel Does.
Join the MSCA Proposal Red Team Session
Live, Thursday August 20th || 6 PM Paris Time - 5 PM UK Time
90 minutes live • Thursday 20 August • Recording included
If you attend and it's not useful, reply within 48 hours and I'll refund you. No forms.
With Dr. Paulius Yamin
- Former evaluator for the ERC and the UK ESRC
- Policy Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
- Former Scientific Director at the Paris Institute for Advanced Study
- Former Managing Director at the Center for Social Norms and Behavioral Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
- Author of the upcoming "Funding Proposal Secrets" book
Every time you read your proposal looking for reassurance, you make it harder to see why it won't get funded.
Because reassurance doesn't improve proposals.
It protects your blind spots.
Think about who has probably read your proposal so far.
You.
A colleague.
Maybe your supervisor.
Every one of them wants you to succeed.
Every one of them already understands your research.
Every one of them automatically fills in gaps because they know what you meant to say.
That's not generosity.
That's how the human brain works.
Once you know the story, it's incredibly difficult to notice where the story isn't actually written.
Which is why authors almost never find the biggest weaknesses in their own work.
Now compare that to the person who actually decides whether you receive funding.
They don't know you.
They don't know your intentions.
They don't know what you meant.
They don't know what was supposed to be in Section 1.3 before you deleted two paragraphs the night before submission.
They only know what's on the page.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Every assumption you make they cannot.
Every missing connection your brain quietly supplies they never will.
Every sentence you think is obvious they're seeing for the first time.
They're not reading to understand you.
They're reading to score you.
Those are completely different jobs.
Which creates a problem almost every applicant misses.
Every time you reread your proposal, you become a worse evaluator of it.
Not because you're careless.
Because familiarity slowly replaces objectivity.
The tenth reading doesn't reveal new weaknesses.
It hides them.
You stop reading what's actually written.
You start reading the version that exists inside your head.
That's why applicants can spend six months refining a proposal, and still be shocked by reviewer comments pointing out flaws they genuinely never saw.
Not because the reviewers were smarter.
Because the reviewers were strangers.
Most applicants try to solve this by asking more people to read it.
That sounds sensible.
Until you ask one question.
Who are those people? Who do they want to become?
Your colleagues?
Or your evaluators?
Those are very different roles.
A supportive colleague asks,
"Does this make sense? How can I help?"
An evaluator asks,
"Can I justify giving this a higher score than the proposal I read five minutes ago?"
Your supervisor asks,
"What are you trying to say here?"
An evaluator asks,
"Where is the evidence?"
Your co-author assumes the project works.
An evaluator actively looks for reasons it doesn't.
That difference changes everything.
Because funding panels are not trying to help your proposal survive.
They're trying to decide whether it deserves to survive.
So the question isn't...
"Has someone read my proposal?"
The question is...
"Has someone attacked it the way the panel will?"
Because that's the review that matters.
Not the one designed to encourage you.
The one designed to expose you.
Before the panel does.
And that's exactly what this session is built to do.
So how do you become capable of seeing what the panel will see?
You stop asking people to give you feedback on your proposal and you start asking someone to try to break it.
To expose its flaws the way an evaluator would do.
Not another colleague.
Not another supervisor.
Not another researcher who already understands your work.
Someone whose job was to find weaknesses.
Someone who spent years deciding which proposals deserved funding and which didn't.
That's what The MSCA Proposal Red Team Session is designed to do.
Not to reassure you.
Not to tell you your proposal is "impressive."
Not to polish your wording.
But to expose every weakness while you still have time to fix it.
Why it's called a Red Team
Military organisations use Red Teams before missions.
The blue team builds the strategy.
The red team's job is to destroy it.
Not because they want the mission to fail.
Because they want failure to happen while it's still safe.
Every flaw they uncover before deployment is one less flaw the enemy discovers later.
Your proposal deserves exactly the same treatment.
Every weakness in your proposal will eventually be discovered.
The only question is...
Who finds it first?
You...
Or the evaluation panel.
Better your proposal falls apart for ninety minutes on August 20 than on the evaluator's desk after September 9.
What a previous participant said
"Many talented people have good ideas and a strong desire to contribute to science and society, but they struggle to access the knowledge and resources needed to compete internationally. Your seminar was valuable because it offered insights that are rarely available to researchers in my environment."
Fatima
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship Candidate, Pakistan
If you'd rather discover your proposal's weaknesses while you still have time to fix them then...
Join the MSCA Proposal Red Team Session
Live, Thursday August 20th
6 PM Paris Time / 5 PM UK Time
90 minutes live • Thursday 20 August • Recording included
If you attend and it's not useful, reply within 48 hours and I'll refund you. No forms.
Because the biggest weaknesses in your proposal are the ones you can't see anymore.
The session is $97 USD. If you are between contracts, self-funded, or based in a low- or middle-income country, there is a reduced rate of $47. Email me at paulius@fundingproposalsecrets.com and I will send you the link. No explanation needed.
Here's What Happens On August 20
- Live 90-Minute Red Team Session
Watch a former ERC evaluator read a real proposal exactly the way funding panels do.
Not as a colleague.
Not as a supervisor.
As someone whose job is to decide whether it deserves funding.
You'll hear the questions evaluators ask themselves.
The holes they see quickly.
And the moments confidence in a proposal disappears.
- Live Proposal Teardown
Watch hidden weaknesses exposed in real time.
Objectives that don't match the methods.
Impact statements that describe hopes instead of mechanisms.
Mobility arguments that answer the wrong question.
Timelines that require three years instead of two.
These aren't unusual mistakes.
They're some of the most common reasons good proposals receive lower scores than they should.
- The Five Evaluator Questions
You'll learn the five questions evaluators repeatedly ask themselves
while reading proposals.
The same questions that quietly shape how applications are scored.
Once you know them...
...you'll never read another proposal the same way again.
- Apply Them To Your Own Proposal
This isn't a session where you simply watch.
While we're still live, you'll run those same five questions against your own proposal.
You'll identify exactly where your application creates doubt, and where it loses credibility.
And what gaps need to be closed before submission.
With the evaluator still there to answer your questions.
- A Lifetime Change In How You Read Proposals
You'll leave with more than feedback.
You'll leave with a new lens.
Instead of reading like the person who wrote the proposal...
You'll know how to read it like the person scoring it.
Not just for this MSCA application.
For every fellowship, grant, and funding proposal you'll ever write.
What You'll Leave With
By the end of the session, you'll have three things.
The Five Evaluator Questions: a permanent framework for evaluating every proposal you write.
A personalised action plan: a list of the exact places your own proposal needs strengthening before submission.
A new way of thinking: the ability to stop asking, "I hope this is good enough," and start knowing exactly what an evaluator is likely to see.
If you're ready to stop guessing what an evaluator might think, and start knowing exactly what to fix…
Reserve your place for August 20.
90 minutes live • Thursday 20 August • $97 • Recording included
"As a researcher, I really struggle to develop this sort of strategic expertise. We are trained to write scientific papers, but during our PhDs there is very little training on writing grants. I really liked the idea of framing professional advice as strategies and 'secrets' that are rarely discussed but extremely useful when writing grants."
Marina
Assistant Professor, School of Medicine, University College Dublin - Former MSCA Fellow at the London School of Economics
"But what if my proposal isn't the one reviewed live?"
It's a fair question.
In fact...
If you think the value of this session depends on whether your proposal is chosen...
You've misunderstood what you're actually buying.
You're not paying to watch one proposal get reviewed.
You're paying to learn how evaluators think on a real proposal.
Those are two very different things.
Think about how professionals are trained.
Medical students don't become surgeons by operating on themselves.
They watch experienced surgeons dissect case after case.
Not because those patients matter more than future patients...
But because every operation teaches principles they'll use for the rest of their careers.
Law students don't begin by arguing their own cases.
They spend years analysing other people's cases.
Not because those cases are special, but because patterns repeat.
Pilots don't wait until they're involved in an accident to learn what causes one.
They study accident investigations from flights they've never been on.
Again and again.
Because mistakes leave clues.
And once you know what those clues look like...
You begin spotting them everywhere.
Proposal evaluation works exactly the same way.
Evaluators don't memorise comments.
They develop patterns.
After reading hundreds of proposals, they begin recognising the same problems over and over again.
Objectives that promise more than the methods can deliver.
Impact sections that describe ambitions instead of explaining mechanisms.
Mobility arguments that answer, "Why is this institution good?" instead of, "Why does this researcher need to be at this institution to complete this project?"
Timelines that quietly require more months than the fellowship actually provides.
Different proposals.
The same patterns.
Again.
And again.
And again.
When an evaluator pauses...
Ask yourself why.
When they lose confidence...
Ask yourself what caused it.
When they stop believing a claim...
Ask yourself what evidence was missing.
When they question whether an objective can really be delivered...
Ask yourself whether your own proposal creates the same doubt.
That's how you'll spend the session.
Not passively watching.
Actively comparing.
Actively diagnosing your own proposal.
Actively learning to think the way the evaluator thinks.
And here’s the magic: once you understand why they stop trusting one proposal...
You start noticing those same moments on your own.
In fact, there's an advantage to learning from someone else's proposal first.
When it's your own work...
Your brain keeps defending it.
"What I meant was..."
"The evaluator would understand..."
"I will explain that later..."
You're emotionally attached to it.
Which makes objective thinking almost impossible.
But when you're looking at someone else's proposal, your judgement is sharper.
The patterns are easier to see.
And once you've learned to recognise them there...
You can immediately apply that same way of thinking to your own proposals.
That's why the live review comes first...
And your own proposal comes second.
That's the fastest way to teach you to evaluate it properly.
The proposal reviewed on August 20 isn't the product.
It's the training ground.
The real product is the evaluator's lens.
Because once you've learned to see proposals the way evaluators see them...
You don't lose that ability when the session ends.
You take it into every proposal you write for the rest of your career.
Join us on August 20.
90 minutes live • Thursday 20 August • Recording included
You'll read a paragraph you've written and immediately think,
"That claim isn't supported."
"The method doesn't quite lead to that outcome."
"An evaluator is going to question this timeline."
That's when the session has done its job.
Not because your proposal was reviewed.
But because you've learned to review it yourself.
And that's a skill you'll use on every funding application you ever write.
"I've already had colleagues and my supervisor review it."
Good.
You should.
They'll catch things an evaluator probably won't.
Typos.
Missing references.
Technical inaccuracies.
Places where your explanation could be clearer.
They make your proposal better.
But they don't make it evaluator-proof.
Because they're reading your proposal with a completely different objective.
Think about the questions your colleagues naturally ask.
"Does this make sense?"
"Could you explain this concept more clearly?"
"Should this paragraph come before that one?"
"Have you cited the latest paper?"
Those are useful questions.
But they aren't the questions that decide whether your proposal gets funded.
An evaluator isn't reading your proposal to help you improve it.
They're reading it to decide where it ranks against every other proposal on their desk.
That's an entirely different mindset.
They aren't asking,
"How can I help this researcher communicate better?"
They're asking,
"Do I have enough evidence to justify giving this proposal a higher score than the last one I read?"
Those are not the same question.
And they produce very different readings.
Imagine two people walking through the same house.
One is the architect who designed it.
The other is the building inspector.
They see the same walls.
The same roof.
The same foundation.
But they're looking for completely different things.
The architect sees the vision.
The inspector sees the weaknesses.
Neither is wrong.
They're simply doing different jobs.
Your colleagues are architects.
The evaluation panel are inspectors.
That's why it's possible for a proposal to receive glowing feedback from colleagues and still receive disappointing scores.
Not because your colleagues were careless.
Not because your supervisor didn't try hard enough.
Because they weren't trying to think like evaluators.
And why would they?
That's not their job, and they care enough about their relationship with you to try to preserve it.
There's another problem most applicants don't realise.
The people closest to your work often know too much.
They've discussed your project with you.
They know the background.
They know the assumptions.
They know what you intended to write.
They’ve seen the effort and the dreams you’ve put into it.
So when something important is missing from the page...
Their brain quietly fills in the gap.
They don't even notice they've done it.
An evaluator can't.
They don’t know or like you.
They only have what's in front of them.
Nothing else.
This session isn't designed to replace feedback from colleagues.
It's designed to give you the one perspective your colleagues can never provide.
The perspective of someone who has sat on the other side of the table.
Someone whose responsibility wasn't helping proposals succeed...
...but deciding whether they deserved to.
That's the review almost every applicant is missing.
And it's often the one that matters most.
If you've already collected supportive feedback...
Now collect the one perspective that actually decides your funding.
Reserve Your Place Below.
90 minutes live • Thursday 20 August • Recording included
Your colleagues can tell you what they think.
Only an evaluator can show you what they'll think.
"I've already read the evaluation criteria."
I hope you have.
You should.
Every serious applicant should know the evaluation criteria.
But reading the criteria and thinking like an evaluator are not the
same thing.
If they were...
Everyone who downloaded the evaluation guide would receive a Seal of Excellence.
Clearly, they don't.
The evaluation criteria tell you what is being assessed.
They don't teach you how experienced evaluators make decisions while they're reading.
Those are different things.
One is the rulebook.
The other is judgment.
And judgment is what separates proposals that look similar on paper.
Think about it this way.
Every football player knows the rules of football.
That doesn't make them a referee.
Every lawyer knows the law.
That doesn't make them a judge.
Every researcher applying for MSCA has access to the same evaluation criteria.
That doesn't mean they've learned to think like the people applying them.
Because evaluation doesn't happen at the end of the proposal.
It happens sentence by sentence.
Paragraph by paragraph.
Page by page.
An evaluator isn't waiting until they've finished your proposal before deciding whether it's convincing.
They're forming opinions from the very beginning.
Every objective either increases or decreases confidence.
Every explanation either answers a question or creates a new one.
Every claim either earns trust or weakens it.
By the time they've reached your impact section...
They already have an impression of your proposal.
Whether they realise it or not.
During this session, you won't spend ninety minutes reading the evaluation guide.
You can do that on your own.
Instead, you'll watch those criteria come alive.
You'll see exactly where an evaluator begins to lose confidence.
Where they stop believing a claim.
Where they start asking questions the proposal can't answer.
And perhaps most importantly...
You'll understand why.
Because once you understand why an evaluator reaches a conclusion...
You stop treating the criteria like a checklist.
And you start using them the way evaluators do.
As a framework for judgment.
That's the difference this session is designed to teach.
Reading the criteria tells you what evaluators score.
Watching an evaluator shows you how they score.
Join the Red Team Session.
90 minutes live • Thursday 20 August • Recording included
This session ends in ninety minutes.
The way you read proposals won't.
That's why I don't think of this as a session about your current MSCA application.
I think of it as a permanent upgrade to the way you'll approach every funding proposal you write from this point onwards.
Right now...
Every time you write a proposal, you're forced to rely on reassurance.
"I think this section is okay."
"Hopefully the evaluator understands what I mean."
"Maybe I'm just overthinking it."
"I'll ask one more colleague to have a look."
"I hope they won’t notice my supervisor hasn’t answered this."
It's an exhausting way to work.
Not because writing proposals is difficult.
Because you're constantly making decisions without knowing how they'll be judged.
After this session, something changes.
You stop guessing.
When you read your objectives...
You know what questions an evaluator is likely to ask.
When you write your impact section...
You know where they'll expect evidence instead of aspiration.
When you explain your methodology...
You know where confidence is likely to increase...
...and where it might quietly disappear.
Not because you've memorised another framework.
Because you've changed the way you think.
And that's a skill that doesn't expire on September 9.
You'll use it the next time you apply for funding.
And the time after that.
Whether it's another MSCA call...
An ERC proposal...
A national funding scheme...
Or a fellowship you haven't even considered applying for yet.
The programme changes.
The application forms change.
The word limits change.
But evaluators remain human.
They still read for clarity.
They still look for evidence.
They still lose confidence for the same kinds of reasons.
And once you've learned to recognise those moments...
You carry that ability with you.
That's why the most valuable thing you'll leave with isn't a better proposal.
It's better judgement.
Because proposals come and go.
The person writing them stays.
And every future proposal benefits from the person you've become.
So you have a choice.
You can spend the next twenty days doing what almost every applicant does.
Read your proposal again.
Move a few paragraphs around.
Ask another colleague.
Change that sentence you thought was good enough.
Ask your supervisor if they've had a chance to look at it yet.
Read the evaluation criteria one more time.
Convince yourself that the uneasy feeling you have is probably just nerves.
And hope you've found the weaknesses before the panel does.
You might.
Many applicants don't.
Or...
You can spend ninety minutes seeing your proposal the way it will be judged.
Learning the questions evaluators ask themselves before they assign a final score.
Identifying the places your own proposal creates doubt.
Fixing those weaknesses while you still have time.
And submitting your application knowing you've challenged it harder than the panel is likely to.
One approach relies on hope.
The other relies on evidence.
One asks,
"I wonder if this is good enough?"
The other asks,
"Where would an evaluator stop believing this?"
Those are completely different ways of preparing an application.
The funding panel will eventually answer one question.
Does this proposal deserve funding?
The purpose of this session is to help you answer that question first.
While you still have the power to change the answer.
Join the MSCA Proposal Red Team Session
Live, Thursday August 20th
90 minutes live
6 PM Paris Time / 5 PM UK Time
90 minutes live • Thursday 20 August • Recording included
If you attend and it's not useful, reply within 48 hours and I'll refund you. No forms.
You'll watch a former ERC and UK ESRC evaluator dismantle a real proposal, show you the five evaluator questions that quietly shape funding decisions, apply them immediately to your own proposal.
You’ll leave with a completely different way of evaluating every proposal you write.
Not because you'll know more about your research.
Because you'll finally know how evaluators read it.
Reserve your place now.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need to have finished my proposal before the session?
No.
In fact, I'd rather you hadn't spent another two weeks polishing sections that may need to be completely rethought.
Your proposal doesn't need to be perfect.
It simply needs to be developed enough that you can begin evaluating it.
The purpose of this session isn't to admire a finished draft.
It's to help you identify where an evaluator is likely to lose confidence while you still have time to fix it.
That's why the session is held twenty days before the deadline.
Why is this session paid, when the Q&A was free?
The Q&A was free and over a hundred people came. That is why we never got to the specifics.
This is my job, and charging for the session allows me to dedicate enough time to review proposals and deliver the quality that makes the session really useful for you.
The session is $97 USD. If you are between contracts, self-funded, or based in a low- or middle-income country, there is a reduced rate of $47. Email me at paulius@fundingproposalsecrets.com and I will send you the link. No explanation needed.
What if it does not help?
Attend, and if it was not useful, email me and I will return the $97.
Can I get an invoice?
Yes. An invoice with VAT and institutional billing details is issued and can be addressed to your university.
Will my proposal be shown to other participants?
No. One volunteer's draft is worked through on screen, with their written agreement. Nothing else is shared.
What if my proposal isn't selected for the live review?
The proposal is the teaching tool.
The evaluator's thinking is what you're buying.
Throughout the session, you'll be comparing every question, criticism, and observation against your own proposal.
Then you'll immediately apply the same evaluator questions to your own application while we're still live.
The goal isn't for everyone to receive individual feedback.
The goal is for everyone to leave knowing how to evaluate their own proposal.
I've already had colleagues and my supervisor review my proposal. Will this still help?
Yes.
Your colleagues are trying to help you and your proposal succeed.
An evaluator is trying to determine whether it deserves funding.
Those are different jobs.
Your colleagues bring valuable expertise.
This session gives you something they usually can't:
The perspective of someone who has evaluated proposals under the same criteria your application will be judged against.
The two forms of feedback complement each other.
They don't replace each other.
I've already read the MSCA evaluation criteria. Isn't that enough?
Reading the criteria tells you what is being assessed.
It doesn't teach you how experienced evaluators apply those criteria while they're reading.
That's what you'll see during the session.
You'll watch the criteria move from words on a page...
...to real decisions made in real time.
Will my own proposal receive individual feedback?
No.
Only one proposal will be reviewed in depth during the live demonstration.
The purpose isn't to provide ninety individual reviews.
It's to teach every participant how evaluators think, then help you immediately apply that thinking to your own proposal using the five evaluator questions.
Will there be time to ask questions?
Yes.
You'll be able to ask questions throughout the live session while we're applying the evaluator framework to your own proposal.
One of the advantages of attending live is being able to clarify anything that's specific to your application while the evaluator is still in the room.
Will the session be recorded?
Yes.
If you can't make every minute live, you'll still be able to revisit the session afterwards.
That said, I strongly recommend attending live.
The real value isn't only watching the proposal review.
It's applying the evaluator questions to your own proposal while you can ask questions and receive clarification.
Is this only useful for first-time MSCA applicants?
No.
Many experienced applicants already know the programme, the process, and the evaluation criteria.
What they often haven't developed is the evaluator's perspective on their own proposal.
Whether this is your first proposal or your fifth, the challenge is usually the same:
You're still reading it as its author.
This session is designed to change that.
Why is the session only ninety minutes?
Because the objective isn't to teach everything about writing grant proposals.
The objective is much more focused.
To teach you how evaluators think.
Once that shift happens, you'll approach every section of your proposal differently.
Sometimes one new way of seeing changes more than another ten hours of information.
Is this just for the current MSCA deadline?
No.
The proposal you're writing today is simply where you'll apply the skill first.
Once you've learned to read proposals through an evaluator's eyes, you'll use that way of thinking for future MSCA applications, ERC proposals, national funding schemes, fellowships, and every other competitive proposal you write throughout your career.
The application changes.
The evaluator's way of thinking doesn't.
90 minutes live • Thursday 20 August • Recording included
© Paulius Yamin | www.fundingproposalsecrets.com